Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

There were reports of possible oil deposits near Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

Like most territorial disputes over uninhabited islands, both sides have some sort of claims over them. The Chinese usually cite historic records, suggesting the Chinese were first to discover the islands. There were some disputes between Qing Dynasty and Japan over the islands, but soon Japan took over the islands during Sino-Japanese war. Japan ceded all the lands they captured over the years after WWII, but Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands were not handed back to China. Instead US took control of them.

The Japanese case is a little more complicated. Japan gained control of the uninhabited islands at the time of the First Sino-Japanese War. China (Qing government) formally ceded "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa (Taiwan)" to Japan in its aftermath. So if Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands were part of the islands, then they should be returned to China after WWII. But there is probably no way to make certain. In any case, the islands fell into US control after WWII, which was then handed over to Japan in 1971. Japan controlled them ever since.

The possible oil deposit only makes all sides more interested in claiming the islands.

And it was never right then. Somehow, the world doesn't learn from itself.

China hasn't taken any military action over the islands. At worst there are trash talks from hawkish generals who don't represent the official policy. China is becoming more assertive on disputed claims, but that is a far far far way from the Japanese before end of WWII.

I think it's equally plausible to originate in the US among the "Terry Jones Islam hating crowd", but I do agree that it's not Jewish in origin. If it was Jewish in origin I dare say it would be a lot more subtle about advertising it's "Jewish" credentials. When Jews fund and make political films (and it certainly does happen) they tend to downplay their Jewishness, not play it up.
Of course it's equally possible that Terry Jones is just pawn in all this

To be honest, I don't know whose behind this. However, I've never seen Islamicists use such a cynical tactic before. It doesn't feel like the sort of thing they'd do. Call it a gut feeling, but I don't think it's a Muslim Extremist who made this. Regardless, the mysterious Sam Basile was an agent provocateur. He made this film specifically to create hatred and violence.

Remember those Danish Mohamed caricatures? And how, since they weren't inflammatory enough, some extremists made their own?

Or, more recently and admittedly much smaller, that imam who allegedly burnt a Qran himself so he could frame a Christian girl with learning disabilities?

So they belong to Japan, but China will probably get them because they have a huge army and are ruthless and they'll just 'scare the kid into giving up his lunch money'?

That's clearly underestimating the JSDF's capabilities I see in those comments. I have yet to see how the PRC's army would do in action against a foreign country. But the last time I read about it, Vietnam made them pay with heavy losses... so much for the so-called powerful army.

That's clearly underestimating the JSDF's capabilities I see in those comments. I have yet to see how the PRC's army would do in action against a foreign country. But the last time I read about it, Vietnam made them pay with heavy losses... so much for the so-called powerful army.

I have Vietnamese blood of my own too. I was just saying that even a country that's apparently small can whoop a superpower's ass even now. If China want to try that with Japan, they surely are knocking at the wrong door for bullying someone.

It depends on how you view ethics. In a sense they are forms of religion, in the sense that they teach one how to behave in a certain situation. Human spirituality is interconnected to morality, with religions having a more structured spiritual basis and ethic having more of a moral basis without the accompanying structure related to gods or the afterlife.

Spirituality and morality is not the same as organized religion.

A person can be far more spiritual and closer to being at peace than one who rabidly worships for personal gain and the misfortune of those in their path.

And yes, plenty of people around me are like the latter. Is that good then?

Quote:

I believe it to be baloney the basic thought that religion is a problem, since I consider such thoughts to be the very essence of the bigoted "liberal" interpretation of the workings of the world. Any sort of thought that concludes one thing is an evil for the sake of being something is at the core the very intolerance that causes religious radical to do the crimes that happened.

It's also not that religion is a problem. The fundamental tenets of most religions generally aim at promoting positive things. It's that people warp those ideals, commit all sorts of desecrations and heresies for their own ends in the firm belief they are right. It is twisted from a spiritual guide into a foul club to beat whomever is the target into submission

And the ones I see are all from Buddhism (due to the fact it's the majority religion in my place)....the most spiritual and gentle of religions corrupted by individuals into such. Can you imagine then what about other more hot blooded faiths?

What good then is there to have another outlet for them to act as such in the form of organized religion? I'd rather the practise of spirituality be a private affair since the main aim of it is improving the self.

It wouldn't be as complicated a dispute (including outrage by both civilian populations) if it were that simple..

I know it isn't that simple, but still...I think Japan is going to back down from China because they probably won't step out of line over this, but still, if I was Japan, I wouldn't want to conflict too much with China.

The islands are "officially" administered by Japan. Ishigaki, Okinawa since 1972. The Japanese govenment has not allowed the islands to be developed in the entire time they have had control of them post-war. Also, if I understand the history correctly, it was considered part of the Ryūkyū Kingdom prior to Japan annexing the place. Japan offered it to China as a peaceful gesture before the Sino-Japanese War, but afterwards took it in full.

The islands are "officially" administered by Japan. Ishigaki, Okinawa since 1972. The Japanese govenment has not allowed the islands to be developed in the entire time they have had control of them post-war. Also, if I understand the history correctly, it was considered part of the Ryūkyū Kingdom prior to Japan annexing the place. Japan offered it to China as a peaceful gesture before the Sino-Japanese War, but afterwards took it in full.

Upon losing the Sino-Japan war, the Qing Dynasty officially accepted the islands to be Japanese territory, although I'm sure it was reluctantly.
They didn't raise a voice about it until the islands were found to be sitting on possible resource goldmine, and returned to Japan by US in early 1970s.

They were. Furthermore, as I restate: Chiang gave up the islands along with the Ryukyus in Cairo. PRC might contest it, but they would technically have to challenge the return of the Ryukyu Islands in order to claim Senkaku.